Gamera

Again you missed the point. The chairman typically thanks the witness before the testimony (honestly check the Congressional record and stop speculating about well-attested language practices). If they break for lunch and she reappears, he could say "thank you for appearing," and you would understand that it really means appearing again. You wouldn't be confused. Your ears wouldn't perk up. It's a perfectly comprehensible English language event. It happens everyday.

So you really can't win this quibble. It hardly illuminates the meaning of phaineron, but it does suggest the linguistic naivety of those who assume phaineron has a fixed, easy to understand meaning that they can look up in a lexicon without pausing to research the matter.

GakuseiDon

Yes, I do. And interestingly enough, it is pertinent to the OP. The sub-lunar realm is NOT a mythical place of imagination or "revelation". I would love to know where you got that idea from. I suspect that you, like many others, got it from Doherty. I'd be interested to know where Doherty got it from as well (Earl, if you are reading this, let us know), since the idea isn't present in the early Christian literature. Not even in Doherty's favorite Ascension of Isaiah. I suspect that the idea has grabbed the attention of mythicists today, since they grew up with the concept of other dimensions by watching "The Twilight Zone" and other sci-fi shows. AFAIK, it is a modern concept that gets applied back on the ancient texts.

But think of it from the perspective of the people way back then. When they looked up, they saw a blue dome covering the sky. Rain comes from the sky, so they thought that the blue dome must be holding back water. Fire rises upwards, so some Greek philosophers thought that fire was a spiritual substance which naturally goes up, so the heavens must be filled with fire (ironic, given that this is how Christians nowadays think of Hell!) Some believed that the dome was made of iron, others that it was Zeus himself. No-one really knew what lay above the dome, except that it was the home of the gods or God. I think that the Enoch books weren't trying to describe what really existed up there, as much as give hints regarding the ultimate fate of those who rebeled against God -- they were taken up beyond the firmament and punished. I doubt that people took the idea of armies up there any more literally than people today take the idea of people in robes and wings playing harps on clouds.

With Middle Platonism around the time of Paul, the view developed that the supra-lunar realm was composed of a perfect and unchanging God or gods. The sub-lunar realm (from Moon to the surface of the earth) was thought to be changing, temporary, corrupted. But it wasn't a separate reality -- you can see the sub-lunar realm BY LOOKING UP. People can SEE the sub-lunar realm, and thus didn't populate it with armies, thrones, etc. (Visions were visions, and not taken as a literal depiction AFAICS) It WASN'T a "mythical strata of heaven" at all, if you mean that people placed the myths of the gods there. People in Paul's time believed that the myths either took place on earth, or they were allegorical and thus never occured at all. NO-ONE believed that they took place in a sub-lunar realm, because PEOPLE COULD SEE THIS WHEN THEY LOOKED UP.

By Paul's time, people thought that the air around them was filled with millions of demons, airy or fiery creatures that lived in the air, around statues and in mountains. They didn't live in a pocket universe as people nowadays imagine the devil does, where he pops into our world and pops out again. People in Paul's time believed that you could become possessed just by breathing a demon in. You had to be careful, as breath was life!

Paul called Satan the "god of this world". He believed that this world, from the Moon down to the surface of the earth (which is the full sub-lunar realm) was temporary corruptible matter, which Satan had control over, thus had rule over all corruptible matter. God was above the firmament, perfect and unchanging.

I believe that when Paul heard about Jesus, he thought that Jesus was just another false prophet. However, I believe that Paul believed that he met Jesus in heaven. This would have changed all for Paul. The only way for someone to get to heaven is if he became a god. It's claimed that some saw a comet when Julius Caesar died, and this was evidence enough that his spirit had ascended beyond the firmament. If that was the case, then it was evidence that he had become a god -- perfect and unchanging. I think that Paul believed that Jesus must have become a "god" since he had seen Jesus in heaven.

When Jesus returned, Paul believed that he would return bringing the unchanging perfection of heaven itself. Obviously impermanent flesh, and death itself, couldn't survive such a scenario. Paul believed that a new creation would take place -- where the current heaven and earth would be destroyed to form a new creation. This is what Wright is pointing out -- Jesus wouldn't just be reappearing to lead people back heaven; Jesus would be reappearing and STAYING, since the new creation would allow all to live there. Those living would have their flesh converted into incorruptibility, and given the spiritual nature of the new bodies, they would rise and meet the Lord in the air.

I hope this has clarified the difference between the sub-lunar realm and the supra-lunar realm, and why Doherty's version of a "fleshly sub-lunar realm" simply doesn't gell.

Gamera

Perhaps you should spend less time memorizing old English riddles and more time looking up how the word εὐαγγ�*λιον is actually used in Greek texts. It is almost always related to a storyline to be related, and hence means a little narrative.

And speaking of old English tales, the English word gospel is a direct translation of the latin version of Gk. euangelion, i.e., an assimilated form of god (good) spel (story, relating of course to our word "spell", what you write down). So the folks who wrote your riddle thought the gospel was a story.

Gamera

Steve, you just can't win this. Here is actual sentences from fundamentalist Christians who beleive in Christ's return. They speak English and they use "appear' to mean "reappear." I could quote about 1000 more. Are you saying now that fundamentalists don't speak English or don't think Jesus will reappear, but will appear for the first time. Let us know your analysis of these perfectly good English sentences THAT ACTUALLY EXIST.


- WHEN WOULD THE TEMPLE BE DESTROYED? -

http://members.aol.com/d4web4s/queries/whndstrd.htm
"At the end of this era the Lord Jesus will appear"


http://www.netpluscom.com/~johnsonr/...%20coming.html

What Does the Bible Say About...
End Times: 2nd coming

"Christ will appear to everyone with great glory, mighty angels and saints"

Word of Faith Theology
http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/A...ordofFaith.htm
"He appeared after His resurrection and He is about to appear before His second coming!" -- Benny Hinn!


Now, stop all this nonsense.

Gamera

No, it is inconsistent, as I have pointed out and will do so again. See Phillipians. Paul argues that Jesus was in the form of God, that he became a servant, that he "humbled" himself -- literally "listened attentively" to death -- meaning he took on the role of a savior. Then he was executed, meaning he was found guilty as a criminal. This remarkable form of obedience (for Jesus, who was immune to death, to insert himself into an historical narrative in which he will die), according to Paul results in his exaltation by God.

I simply can't understand your insistent that this is somehow not unique, since Paul virtually drools over its uniqueness.

Ah, personal attacks: the sound of Amaleq losing another argument to gamera.

gurugeorge

Oh it's a little narrative now is it? Is that the same as the "big narrative" that you think must have been like the Gospels proper that Paul doesn't give us, but that you speculate he preached, or is it the (very) "little narrative" we actually find in Corinthians and elsewhere?

The original meaning has nothing to do with storyline: it's more like a headline. My understanding is that it was used of a proclamation given by heralds for such things as victories in war. It's about an event, but it is not itself a narrative.

Actually on digging around I've found a bit of detail on a bible studies website (fundie comments snipped):

Euaggelion was commonly used in the Greco-Roman culture as:

"a technical term for "news of victory." The messenger appears, raises his right hand in greeting and calls out with a loud voice: "rejoice …we are victorious". By his appearance it is known already that he brings good news. His face shines, his spear is decked with laurel, his head is crowned, he swings a branch of palms, joy fills the city, euaggelia are offered, the temples are garlanded, an agon (race) is held, crowns are put on for the sacrifices and the one to whom the message is owed is honored with a wreath...[thus] euaggelion is closely linked with the thought of victory in battle."
(Theological Dictionary of the New Testament) [...]

Euaggelion was used in secular Greek chiefly in connection with oracles (i.e. the promise of some future event) and in the imperial cult that euaggelion acquires a religious meaning. In the latter sphere news of the "divine" ruler’s birth, coming of age or enthronement and also his speeches, decrees and acts are glad tidings which bring long hoped-for fulfillment to the longings of the world for happiness and peace [...]. An instance of this is the decree of the Greeks of the province of Asia c. 9 B.C. marking the birthday of Augustus (23 September) the beginning of the civil year [...]

“It is a day which we may justly count as equivalent to the beginning of everything—if not in itself and in its own nature, at any rate in the benefits it brings—inasmuch as it has restored the shape of everything that was failing and turning into misfortune, and has given a new look to the Universe at a time when it would gladly have welcomed destruction if Caesar had not been born to be the common blessing of all men...Whereas the Providence which has ordered the whole of our life, showing concern and zeal, has ordained the most perfect consummation for human life by giving to it Augustus, by filling him with virtue for doing the work of a benefactor among men, and by sending in him, as it were, a savior for us and those who come after us, to make war to cease, to create order everywhere...and whereas the birthday of the God [Augustus] was the beginning for the world of the glad tidings that have come to men through him...Paulus Fabius Maximus, the proconsul of the province . . . has devised a way of honoring Augustus hitherto unknown to the Greeks, which is, that the reckoning of time for the course of human life should begin with his birth” [...] (E. Barker: From Alexander to Constantine: Passages and Documents Illustrating the History of Social and Political Ideas 336 B.C.-A.D. p337, 1956)

Amaleq13

You've made the claim repeatedly but have yet to back it up with anything but your imagination. This most recent post is certainly no exception.

This doesn't require or imply that he did anything "unique" during the course of his life except that he allow himself to be sacrificed.

Again, this doesn't require or imply that he did anything "unique" during the course of his life prior to the execution.

This also neither requires nor implies that the life he lead prior to obediently allowing himself to be executed was in any way "unique".

Even conceding that the act of obediently allowing himself to be executed is "unique" does absolutely nothing to support your contention that the life Jesus lead prior to that event was "unique" nor that Paul thought it so nor that he included it as part of his gospel.

Why you think any of this supports your contention is a mystery. You have utterly failed to win anything except in your mind. Not surprising since that is where all your evidence apparently exists.

Gamera

No a little narrative isn't like a big narrative. See, big narratives, like the synoptics are long and generally written, little narratives, like the gospel Paul preached were oral, just like the word implies, and involved a brief description of an event that amounted to good new.

My dear guru, a headline IS a storyline. It's a brief narrative: "Dog bites man". That's a narrative. Why are you so intent on denying the obvious.

Here are the headlines from CNN today:

Terror police probe al Qaeda links
Security scare cancels Heathrow flights
Airmen flown to safety on chopper's wings

Each has a character who performs an action. I.e., a narrative.

Yep, and the messenger would relate the events that constituted the victory. That's how Homer uses it (through metonomy the message was transposed to the gift given to the messenger for telling the tale).

Yes, oracles would related future events, usually in cryptic terms. The interpreted needed to decipher the oracle to determine the events, a narrative.

I think it's fair to say that a day described as the "beginning of everything" including the "course of human life," suggests a narrative; indeed it's narrative history that is refered to here. And it's all but explicit: "the glad tidings that have come to men through him" can be nothing else but events, such victories in war, public projects, new trading partners.

I don't see any examples here of euaggelion even intimating at a meaning that includes "theological discussions of a general nature."

Gamera

Ephesians 2:17:
17He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near.

Not everybody preaches and few preach peace. By the way the verb here is euaggelizw, "to gospelize"

Romans 5:19
For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Few (none) are obedient to God according to Paul, so this was extraordinary, hence Romans 3:12 and Romans 3:23

Romans 15:7
Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God.

Jesus accepted others, whatever that means, but it probably means loved, which Paul finds extraordinary, hence: Ephesians 5:2 and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

So out of just these oblique references we see Paul understood that the life of Jesus involved (a) preaching peace, a gospel of peace in fact; (b) being obedient to God; and (c) loving people. We're piecing together quite an interesting little biography of this Jesus, you and I, Amaleq, just from Paul's indirect statements. And the funny thing is, these are themes that also appear in the synoptic biographies of Jesus. It's almost as if they're telling a similar story.

Still going to insist Paul had no sense of Jesus' life as unique biography?

Amaleq13

Appealing to a letter most scholars consider pseudonymous doesn't help you at all. In addition, preaching was hardly unique though I would be interested in how you establish preaching peace was. Is this really all you have?

Yes, I've already acknowledged that being obedient to the point of allowing yourself to be executed is "unique". I've also pointed out that this has everything to do with how Jesus' life ended while saying nothing about how it was spent. When will you actually start reading my posts so we don't have to keep repeating ourselves?

I would think it means that Christ accepted them when they became Christians but, given that you don't know what it means it can hardly be considered supportive of your contention. Even accepting it to mean what you suggest, it does nothing to indicate that Jesus lead a "unique life" prior to being executed.

No, you're scrambling to find verses to justify your assertion and only finding references to the significance of Jesus' death/resurrection or words written by someone other than Paul. Frankly, I'm surprised at the obviously ad hoc nature of your defense. Did you read your assertion in a favorite author's book and just assumed it had a basis in Paul's letters?

Please quit trying to rewrite history as the effort is too easy to prove false by a simple review of the thread. I've been denying your assertion that Paul's gospel included something about the "unique life" of Jesus (emphasis mine):
Nothing you've offered actually supports the claim in bold and certainly not if the "unique life" depicted in the Gospels is how the phrase is to be understood.